Gambling Scam

Wire fraud is the catch-all statute for federal prosecutors. In the context of a gambling scam, every email sent to a player, every server ping across state lines and every Bitcoin transfer constitutes a separate violation.

We attack the materiality of the alleged deception. If a casino advertised a 98% payout rate but a software glitch caused it to be 97%, we argue that this is a civil warranty issue rather than criminal fraud. We force the government to prove that the misrepresentation went to the heart of the bargain. If the player still had a fair chance to win (even if the odds were slightly different than advertised), the essential element of the scheme to defraud may be missing.

The pivot point of the entire case is intent. A casino that goes bankrupt and cannot pay its players is not necessarily a scam. It is a failed business.

We vigorously defend against the retrospective criminalization of business failure. We gather internal communications and financial records to show that the operators intended to pay and were making good faith efforts to maintain liquidity. We argue that mismanagement is not a crime. By distinguishing between insolvency and theft, we dismantle the government’s theory that the operation was a fraudulent scheme from its inception.

Allegations that a platform uses rigged software to ensure the house wins are technically complex. The government may claim that the Random Number Generator (RNG) is not actually random or that backdoors exist allowing administrators to see player cards.

We employ independent software engineers and mathematicians to audit the code. We look for the seed data used to generate the random numbers. We often find that what the government calls a rig is actually a feature designed to prevent player collusion or a bug that affected both the house and the player equally. If we can prove the software was certified by a third-party auditor, it serves as powerful evidence of good faith.

Many gambling scam investigations begin with consumer complaints about the inability to withdraw funds. Prosecutors view this as a Ponzi scheme indicator (using new deposits to pay old withdrawals until the money runs out).

We investigate the reasons for the delay. Often, the operator is complying with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations which require them to freeze suspicious accounts. We argue that the operator was legally obligated to hold the funds pending verification. We convert the narrative from one of theft to one of regulatory compliance (showing that the casino was following the law rather than breaking it).

Much of what is labeled a gambling scam is actually a dispute over the Terms of Service (TOS). Players often violate the TOS by using VPNs, multi-accounting or bonus abuse strategies. When the casino confiscates their winnings based on the contract, the player cries fraud.

We treat the TOS as a binding contract. We demonstrate to the jury that the player agreed to these rules and that the operator’s actions were contractually justified. We argue that enforcing the rules of the game against a cheater is the opposite of fraud; it is protecting the integrity of the platform for honest players.

Casinos offer bonuses to attract players but these offers come with strict wagering requirements. When players attempt to exploit these bonuses through arbitrage betting, the casino intervenes.

We defend the operator by showing that the alleged victim was actually the one attempting to defraud the house. We present data showing the player’s betting patterns which mimic known bot behaviors or syndicates. By turning the tables and impugning the credibility of the complaining witnesses, we undermine the prosecution’s case that the operator acted with criminal intent.

The server logs are the black box of the case. They record every hand dealt, every spin and every login. We analyze this massive dataset to find exculpatory evidence.

If the government claims a specific game was rigged on a specific date, we pull the logs to show that other players won during that same period. We also introduce evidence of RNG certification from reputable testing labs. If an independent lab certified the fairness of the algorithm, it creates a presumption that the operator was acting honestly and rebuts the claim of secret manipulation.

In cases involving alleged embezzlement or non-payment, we follow the money. We trace the flow of funds through payment processors and cryptocurrency wallets.

We often demonstrate that the funds are not missing but are stuck in a liquidity crunch caused by a third-party processor freezing the merchant account. We prove that the operator did not steal the money but lost access to it due to banking restrictions. This factual defense negates the element of theft and shifts the blame to the friction of the high-risk payment ecosystem.

If the defendant is located offshore, the case often begins with an extradition request. We coordinate with local counsel in the foreign jurisdiction to fight extradition.

We argue that the conduct alleged is not a crime in the host country (dual criminality requirement). If gambling is legal and regulated in the country where the operator sits, we argue that the U.S. is attempting to enforce its moral laws on a sovereign nation. We also challenge the evidence presented in the extradition package (arguing it is insufficient to establish probable cause).

Even if the defendant is in the U.S., we challenge the application of U.S. law to foreign gaming activities. We analyze the flow of data.

If the bet was placed by a non-U.S. person on a non-U.S. server, the U.S. government has no jurisdiction even if the operator is an American citizen. We file motions to dismiss counts that involve wholly extraterritorial conduct. We force the government to parse the indictment and remove any allegations that exceed their statutory authority.